While enshrining the Brexit date in the Bill is stupid and deserves to be taken out putting it there in the first place is a fairly transparent tactic. Rebels have to waste their political capital on removing this rather than any of the preexisting nonsense. Defeating it will let the Commons feel it's had it's pound of flesh when really in a way it's been duped.

That said May did front this amendment her self with a shrill Daily Telegraph article and an email to Tory members. So it's a genuine if largely symbolic defeat for her if she has to pull it.

However if the end it's this the rebels block and not the worst of the Henry VIII powers I suspect the Whips will be privately chuckling.

1. People aged 45 to 65 – the baby boomers – own more than half of the £6.7tn national wealth. Willetts estimates that they own £3.5tn - £1tn in liquid assets, £1tn in housing, £0.75tn in other physical assets and £0.75tn in pensions. He says the over-65s own £2.3tn and the under-45s own £0.9tn. The main argument of the book is that the baby boomers should share more with the young.

2. Baby boomers have done particularly well out of the welfare state. Those born between 1956 and 1961 are forecast to get from the welfare state 118% of what they will have put into it.

4. Average household size in Britain (2.4) is one of the lowest in the world. Willetts says there is a correlation between average household size and equality. If a couple break up, and the man is working and the woman isn't, the man will be counted as richer in the official figures (because he now does not have family to feed) while the woman will be counted as poorer. "By and large more equal societies have bigger households," Willetts say. The average household size in Sweden is 3.1, which is "one reason why its level of inequality is much lower".

1. People aged 45 to 65 – the baby boomers – own more than half of the £6.7tn national wealth. Willetts estimates that they own £3.5tn - £1tn in liquid assets, £1tn in housing, £0.75tn in other physical assets and £0.75tn in pensions. He says the over-65s own £2.3tn and the under-45s own £0.9tn. The main argument of the book is that the baby boomers should share more with the young.

2. Baby boomers have done particularly well out of the welfare state. Those born between 1956 and 1961 are forecast to get from the welfare state 118% of what they will have put into it.

4. Average household size in Britain (2.4) is one of the lowest in the world. Willetts says there is a correlation between average household size and equality. If a couple break up, and the man is working and the woman isn't, the man will be counted as richer in the official figures (because he now does not have family to feed) while the woman will be counted as poorer. "By and large more equal societies have bigger households," Willetts say. The average household size in Sweden is 3.1, which is "one reason why its level of inequality is much lower".

Some important points there.

4) is interesting, but not easy to fix. Improving the quality of relationships so that families stick together is not something that is very amenable to government policy. One way is to reduce financial pressures on the young, as finances tend to be a major source of argument. Hence back to tuition fees and related issues.

Increasing household size does make sense as part of an overall housing policy. Encouraging empty nesters to trade down to smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up family size homes for the next generation, should be part of this. The bedroom tax was characteristically ineptly implemented, but right in principle. State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

A gradual phasing back in of normal interest rates, which will aid savers and subdue house inflation, is long overdue. As @RCS1000 has pointed out on a number of occasions, a low savings rate leads to a current account deficit.

Never mind Tim Paine, how's this for a stat? Cameron Bancroft played for Gloucestershire last season. Until his final innings (where he scored 206* to lift his average to an even 40) he had scored 479 runs at the princely average of 26, with no centuries and just four fifties.

Players in the squad with a higher average included his opening partner Chris Dent (894 at 42) and David Payne (203 at 33) - who is a specialist fast bowler!

So either what we have been told about the second division of the championship is a load of round objects, or Chris Dent is the answer to our opening conundrum, or the standard of shield cricket and Australian batting generally is so dismal that they see quality in a batsman not fit for the first team in a really struggling English county.

Either way, while I still expect Oz to win, something strange is going on.

House building on the scale we need will be perceived as an attack on the equity and amenity of those already with houses - the majority of the population and who are disproportionately represented in the Tory Base. It would take a miracle/suicide mission by a Conservative government with a huge majority in good times to pull off. The idea one with no majority and Brexit to deal with is going to do it is fanciful. They'd be insane to try. Which doesn't mean small things can't or won't be done. I suspect they will but radical action is for the Birds.

The least impractical option - letting councils/RSLs borrow to build and also take the blame for unpopular developments - is the one most objectional to Tory Theology. Though why is beyond me. The only way a future Tory government can sell council houses again to tenants is build some more council houses in the first place.

Basically this is a crisis of Conservative voter creation. If the engine has been switched off by folk being stuck in the PRS for too long that doesn't mean the Super Tanker will stop moving for a long while even if the crew knows the inevitable out come.

Then there is Brexit. Tell me at a psychological, emotional, zeitgeist level did the Tory Shires vote for Brexit to induce massive house building or prevent as they see it the need for it ?

Some welcome supply side tinkering will happen but expect the emphasis on nonsense like HtB and Stamp Duty cuts for first time buyers. Stuff that looks like a good retail offer but does bugger all about supply.

1. People aged 45 to 65 – the baby boomers – own more than half of the £6.7tn national wealth. Willetts estimates that they own £3.5tn - £1tn in liquid assets, £1tn in housing, £0.75tn in other physical assets and £0.75tn in pensions. He says the over-65s own £2.3tn and the under-45s own £0.9tn. The main argument of the book is that the baby boomers should share more with the young.

2. Baby boomers have done particularly well out of the welfare state. Those born between 1956 and 1961 are forecast to get from the welfare state 118% of what they will have put into it.

4. Average household size in Britain (2.4) is one of the lowest in the world. Willetts says there is a correlation between average household size and equality. If a couple break up, and the man is working and the woman isn't, the man will be counted as richer in the official figures (because he now does not have family to feed) while the woman will be counted as poorer. "By and large more equal societies have bigger households," Willetts say. The average household size in Sweden is 3.1, which is "one reason why its level of inequality is much lower".

State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

The late Bob Crow would have been out on his ear.

It does work - in Guernsey once a tenant’s income reaches a certain level they have to move on.

If anything the Coalition made it worse - triple lock on pensions and increased tuition fees. Mind you, given the reaction to the “dementia tax” one can understand this being filed under “too difficult”...

@Foxinsoxuk The ' Bedroom Tax ' didn't apply to over 65's who were most likely to have spare rooms because they vote and are sympathetic. And of course it's not a tax it's a benefit cut. Any Social Housing tenant paying their own rent can have as many spare bedrooms as they like. It was a particularly nasty piece of class war by IDS aimed at the most vulnerable tenants. I'm surprised to hear you defend it. Much less extended to 65+ ( good luck with that ) or turned into a literal tax for working tenants.

If anything the Coalition made it worse - triple lock on pensions and increased tuition fees. Mind you, given the reaction to the “dementia tax” one can understand this being filed under “too difficult”...

The reaction to the social care proposals was horrifying to anyone who actually cares about fixing things on the “too difficult” list.

Housing, social care, health and, yes, Brexit, could all benefit from a cross party or Royal Commission approach, but instead are a nightmare because people can’t agree on what the way forward needs to be.

@Foxinsoxuk In addition Housing Associations aren't ' state owned '. It's why Osborne had them put on the books when he wanted to force them to sell properties and why they've swiftly been taken off the books again when the ONS said that meant their debt had be on the books as well. Would we be as cavalier at regulating how other charities allocate their resources ?

1. People aged 45 to 65 – the baby boomers – own more than half of the £6.7tn national wealth. Willetts estimates that they own £3.5tn - £1tn in liquid assets, £1tn in housing, £0.75tn in other physical assets and £0.75tn in pensions. He says the over-65s own £2.3tn and the under-45s own £0.9tn. The main argument of the book is that the baby boomers should share more with the young.

2. Baby boomers have done particularly well out of the welfare state. Those born between 1956 and 1961 are forecast to get from the welfare state 118% of what they will have put into it.

4. Average household size in Britain (2.4) is one of the lowest in the world. Willetts says there is a correlation between average household size and equality. If a couple break up, and the man is working and the woman isn't, the man will be counted as richer in the official figures (because he now does not have family to feed) while the woman will be counted as poorer. "By and large more equal societies have bigger households," Willetts say. The average household size in Sweden is 3.1, which is "one reason why its level of inequality is much lower".

Some important points there.

4) is interesting, but not easy to fix. Improving the quality of relationships so that families stick together is not something that is very amenable to government policy. One way is to reduce financial pressures on the young, as finances tend to be a major source of argument. Hence back to tuition fees and related issues.

Increasing household size does make sense as part of an overall housing policy. Encouraging empty nesters to trade down to smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up family size homes for the next generation, should be part of this. The bedroom tax was characteristically ineptly implemented, but right in principle. State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

A gradual phasing back in of normal interest rates, which will aid savers and subdue house inflation, is long overdue. As @RCS1000 has pointed out on a number of occasions, a low savings rate leads to a current account deficit.

Worth noting that there are two groups that have been hit very hard by the ultra low interest rates:

1) Baby boomers like my parents with cash savings rather than index linked pensions.2) 20 somethings like me looking to save for a deposit.

So with that in mind I can say I'm doing my bit for average household size by still living with my parents.

@Foxinsoxuk The ' Bedroom Tax ' didn't apply to over 65's who were most likely to have spare rooms because they vote and are sympathetic. And of course it's not a tax it's a benefit cut. Any Social Housing tenant paying their own rent can have as many spare bedrooms as they like. It was a particularly nasty piece of class war by IDS aimed at the most vulnerable tenants. I'm surprised to hear you defend it. Much less extended to 65+ ( good luck with that ) or turned into a literal tax for working tenants.

It is right in principle, but like UC, witless and cruel in implementation. I agree that under occupancy should be disincentivised for the over 65s too.

I would suggest that social housing tenancies should be time limited, then reappraised after that period ends. Tenants should have the right to buy, but not to kerp a subsidy for life regardless of improved circumstances. If people want to retain the place then they should pay full market rents.

We have a housing crisis, at the same time as having a lot of under occupation. We need to address the latter.

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that. The cost, the appeals, the media horror stories, the civil disobedience and resisted evictions, the appalling incentive not to improve your situation or regress it as your reassessment approaches. All to evict ' Hard working Brits ' so Mohammed and his 9 kids on benefits can be rehoused as The Sun will frame it...

That's before we get to the view that the problem with Britain's social housing estates is their are too many working residents and they need more poor people with complex needs.

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that. The cost, the appeals, the media horror stories, the civil disobedience and resisted evictions, the appalling incentive not to improve your situation or regress it as your reassessment approaches. All to evict ' Hard working Brits ' so Mohammed and his 9 kids on benefits can be rehoused as The Sun will frame it...

That's before we get to the view that the problem with Britain's social housing estates is their are too many working residents and they need more poor people with complex needs.

Do you really believe that someone should retain the right to a subsidised house for life regardless of improved circumstances? Where is the fairness in that?

I would introduce my new policy to new tenants as a condition of commencing tenancy, as they need to be aware for their own planning purposes. I would not evict, but would increase rents on those who could afford it and retain the right to buy. People who have progressed economically could keep their house, but at the cost to themselves rather than taxpayer.

@Foxinsoxuk #1 Now you are conflating Subsidy with something being below market rent. They aren't the same thing. Then you defend Right to Buy for social housing tenants - which with the current discounts is a massive subsidy to buy ! Why is selling someone an asset massively below market rates where they pocket the difference OK but just renting it below market rates before handing it back to br relet wrong ?

Then there is the Brexit effect. 68% to 70% of Social Housing Tenants voted Leave. There is a reason why all the nonsense you are proposing, which Osborne was doing, was all dropped within months of May taking over.

@Foxinthesox That's just Daily Mail nonsense now. " Subsidy " as a blanket assertion of all social housing tenancies is bad enough as is conflating subsidy with below market rent. But using social housing tenants in opposition to " tax payer " ( because you can't be both ) or using " cost to the taxpayer " as a strong form of the false " subsidy " is rubbish. And Housing Associations aren't " the Taxpayer " ! They are independent charities !

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that.

Works in Guernsey.

Tenants who are in social housing, but whose income is found to exceed the relevant income threshold, will be asked to move out of social housing. The formula for determining eligibility takes into account average private sector rents, and therefore any household with earnings in excess of the income threshold can reasonably be expected to support itself in the private sector.

does the Cabinet even agree on a line in the sand date....? It does appear a distraction from the bigger issues (one which grabs attention) .

As for the housing issue there is no easy quick fix solution, if anyone thinks a lab govt will solve that one in its first (and only?) term then they'll believe anything....

A proper Brexit, with the UK outside the SM/CU and proper immigration controls, will help to solve the housing crisis. Parts of England, particularly the South-East, can't cope with more people and housing. The reduction in trade links with places outside Europe that had developed between the reigns of QE1 and QE2 when the UK joined the EU has done much to focus economic progress on SE England and has been particularly bad for former industrial areas on the west coast of GB, such as Glasgow, Liverpool and South Wales.

The EU will do everything it can to make it impossible for London to continue as the financial capital of Europe post Brexit, so this will no longer be a cash cow for the Treasury and alternative income-generators will need to be developed.

Sajid Javid gets it, and he gets it much more than the other ‘new generation’ of Tories do. Also, the reaction of the DM (see their front page) is utterly pathetic.

You’re right - he gets it.Let’s see what happens though...I still suspect only a Labour govt would really be committed to addressing this.

The problem he faces is that the housing crisis is as much to do with finance and taxation as it is with the supply of housing, as the FT recently explained. The Tories show few signs of being willing to unlock the current financial settlement, although Osborne did, to his credit, put in train the very slow unwinding of btl tax advantages.

Having a fixed date that people such as tax authorities, customs authorities, lawyers, those who need to organise transitional arrangements (eg air traffic control) etc can work to seems a bizarre thing to go to the mattresses about. Is it just that it makes it that little bit more real?

Are we really going to find ourselves in a situation where we won't know from one week to the next what legal system is going to be applicable? The Henry VIII powers will need modification with more oversight and limitations but the product of these are going to be an enormous raft of statutory instruments which will make reference to the "relevant date" for their implementation. Are we really not going to know what that relevant date is until the last minute?

This is really irrational but then most of the debate since the referendum has been. To take a simple example, suppose you have a regulatory system where you currently need sanction/permission/authorisation from an EU institution. This will be changed to a UK institution on the relevant date. Are people not going to know where to make their applications to? Its crazy.

The government needs to man up. Their greatest failing (amongst many) to date has been the lack of preparation for what might arise on the date we leave. They are narrowing down their options by failing to do the basic work. The total lack of preparation for a WTO departure undermines our position in the negotiations and threatens a scenario where the EU overplays their hand. It is time some bricks were being put in the wall. And a relevant date for departure is not even a brick, it is a foundation on which the bricks can be placed.

House building on the scale we need will be perceived as an attack on the equity and amenity of those already with houses - the majority of the population and who are disproportionately represented in the Tory Base. It would take a miracle/suicide mission by a Conservative government with a huge majority in good times to pull off. The idea one with no majority and Brexit to deal with is going to do it is fanciful. They'd be insane to try. Which doesn't mean small things can't or won't be done. I suspect they will but radical action is for the Birds.

The least impractical option - letting councils/RSLs borrow to build and also take the blame for unpopular developments - is the one most objectional to Tory Theology. Though why is beyond me. The only way a future Tory government can sell council houses again to tenants is build some more council houses in the first place.

Basically this is a crisis of Conservative voter creation. If the engine has been switched off by folk being stuck in the PRS for too long that doesn't mean the Super Tanker will stop moving for a long while even if the crew knows the inevitable out come.

Then there is Brexit. Tell me at a psychological, emotional, zeitgeist level did the Tory Shires vote for Brexit to induce massive house building or prevent as they see it the need for it ?

Some welcome supply side tinkering will happen but expect the emphasis on nonsense like HtB and Stamp Duty cuts for first time buyers. Stuff that looks like a good retail offer but does bugger all about supply.

HtB actually makes things worse, by increasing the amount of money chasing the same number of homes, and providing greater help to those who are best placed to get on to the ladder in the first place. Reducing property tax could have the same effect, unless it is very carefully targeted.

Ultimately the solution to both the Willetts problem and housing is to make holding property unattractive other than as a primary home, and to redistribute from those holding wealth toward those earning income by taxing the former and lifting the tax burden on the latter.

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that.

Works in Guernsey.

Tenants who are in social housing, but whose income is found to exceed the relevant income threshold, will be asked to move out of social housing. The formula for determining eligibility takes into account average private sector rents, and therefore any household with earnings in excess of the income threshold can reasonably be expected to support itself in the private sector.

And is widely supported - social housing should be for those who need it - not a 'right for life'.

That's certainly evidence the policy exists in Guernsey. Whether it ' works ' or not is a value judgement. Though if I lived in Guernsey, which in this context is vastly different to the UK, I might support it. It'll throw up some incredible marginal rates of income ' tax ' though as folk go over a threshold. I wonder how many refuse extra hours near the cliff edges ?

1. People aged 45 to 65 – the baby boomers – own more than half of the £6.7tn national wealth. Willetts estimates that they own £3.5tn - £1tn in liquid assets, £1tn in housing, £0.75tn in other physical assets and £0.75tn in pensions. He says the over-65s own £2.3tn and the under-45s own £0.9tn. The main argument of the book is that the baby boomers should share more with the young.

2. Baby boomers have done particularly well out of the welfare state. Those born between 1956 and 1961 are forecast to get from the welfare state 118% of what they will have put into it.

4. Average household size in Britain (2.4) is one of the lowest in the world. Willetts says there is a correlation between average household size and equality. If a couple break up, and the man is working and the woman isn't, the man will be counted as richer in the official figures (because he now does not have family to feed) while the woman will be counted as poorer. "By and large more equal societies have bigger households," Willetts say. The average household size in Sweden is 3.1, which is "one reason why its level of inequality is much lower".

Some important points there.

4) is interesting, but not easy to fix. Improving the quality of relationships so that families stick together is not something that is very amenable to government policy. One way is to reduce financial pressures on the young, as finances tend to be a major source of argument. Hence back to tuition fees and related issues.

Increasing household size does make sense as part of an overall housing policy. Encouraging empty nesters to trade down to smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up family size homes for the next generation, should be part of this. The bedroom tax was characteristically ineptly implemented, but right in principle. State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

A gradual phasing back in of normal interest rates, which will aid savers and subdue house inflation, is long overdue. As @RCS1000 has pointed out on a number of occasions, a low savings rate leads to a current account deficit.

Worth noting that there are two groups that have been hit very hard by the ultra low interest rates:

1) Baby boomers like my parents with cash savings rather than index linked pensions.2) 20 somethings like me looking to save for a deposit.

So with that in mind I can say I'm doing my bit for average household size by still living with my parents.

Sadly the likelihood is that, whilst interest rates will very slowly rise, inflation may well rise faster, so that real interest rates are not going up at all, and may possibly fall still further.

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that.

Works in Guernsey.

Tenants who are in social housing, but whose income is found to exceed the relevant income threshold, will be asked to move out of social housing. The formula for determining eligibility takes into account average private sector rents, and therefore any household with earnings in excess of the income threshold can reasonably be expected to support itself in the private sector.

And is widely supported - social housing should be for those who need it - not a 'right for life'.

That's certainly evidence the policy exists in Guernsey. Whether it ' works ' or not is a value judgement. Though if I lived in Guernsey, which in this context is vastly different to the UK, I might support it. It'll throw up some incredible marginal rates of income ' tax ' though as folk go over a threshold. I wonder how many refuse extra hours near the cliff edges ?

The (British) system is already full of some very large marginal tax rates as income rises. From the top of my head:Tax credit withdrawal 65%Higher rate of income tax 42%Child benefit withdrawal at £50-60k can be over 100% for three children or morePersonal allowance withdrawal at £100k 60%Additional rate of income tax 47%

does the Cabinet even agree on a line in the sand date....? It does appear a distraction from the bigger issues (one which grabs attention) .

As for the housing issue there is no easy quick fix solution, if anyone thinks a lab govt will solve that one in its first (and only?) term then they'll believe anything....

A proper Brexit, with the UK outside the SM/CU and proper immigration controls, will help to solve the housing crisis. Parts of England, particularly the South-East, can't cope with more people and housing. The reduction in trade links with places outside Europe that had developed between the reigns of QE1 and QE2 when the UK joined the EU has done much to focus economic progress on SE England and has been particularly bad for former industrial areas on the west coast of GB, such as Glasgow, Liverpool and South Wales.

The EU will do everything it can to make it impossible for London to continue as the financial capital of Europe post Brexit, so this will no longer be a cash cow for the Treasury and alternative income-generators will need to be developed.

The solution to the housing crisis is to damage the economy? Right.

Was it only yesterday that Leavers were heralding the apparent increase in workers from the EU as some kind of sign of success?

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that.

Works in Guernsey.

Tenants who are in social housing, but whose income is found to exceed the relevant income threshold, will be asked to move out of social housing. The formula for determining eligibility takes into account average private sector rents, and therefore any household with earnings in excess of the income threshold can reasonably be expected to support itself in the private sector.

And is widely supported - social housing should be for those who need it - not a 'right for life'.

That's certainly evidence the policy exists in Guernsey. Whether it ' works ' or not is a value judgement. Though if I lived in Guernsey, which in this context is vastly different to the UK, I might support it. It'll throw up some incredible marginal rates of income ' tax ' though as folk go over a threshold. I wonder how many refuse extra hours near the cliff edges ?

The (British) system is already full of some very large marginal tax rates as income rises. From the top of my head:Tax credit withdrawal 65%Higher rate of income tax 42%Child benefit withdrawal at £50-60k can be over 100% for three children or morePersonal allowance withdrawal at £100k 60%Additional rate of income tax 47%

For many of those you should add the marginal employees' NI rate to get the correct figure. Edit/although mostly you have, except for the 60% and possibly the 65%?

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that.

Works in Guernsey.

Tenants who are in social housing, but whose income is found to exceed the relevant income threshold, will be asked to move out of social housing. The formula for determining eligibility takes into account average private sector rents, and therefore any household with earnings in excess of the income threshold can reasonably be expected to support itself in the private sector.

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that.

Works in Guernsey.

Tenants who are in social housing, but whose income is found to exceed the relevant income threshold, will be asked to move out of social housing. The formula for determining eligibility takes into account average private sector rents, and therefore any household with earnings in excess of the income threshold can reasonably be expected to support itself in the private sector.

And is widely supported - social housing should be for those who need it - not a 'right for life'.

That's certainly evidence the policy exists in Guernsey. Whether it ' works ' or not is a value judgement. Though if I lived in Guernsey, which in this context is vastly different to the UK, I might support it. It'll throw up some incredible marginal rates of income ' tax ' though as folk go over a threshold. I wonder how many refuse extra hours near the cliff edges ?

The (British) system is already full of some very large marginal tax rates as income rises. From the top of my head:Tax credit withdrawal 65%Higher rate of income tax 42%Child benefit withdrawal at £50-60k can be over 100% for three children or morePersonal allowance withdrawal at £100k 60%Additional rate of income tax 47%

For many of those you should add the marginal employees' NI rate to get the correct figure. Edit/although mostly you have, except for the 60% and possibly the 65%?

The IFS did a graph on income tax rates, but they don’t take into account NI or tax credits which can vary according to circumstance.

I'm afraid you guys have lost me. I did wonder whether 'Hunting Handbags' was a euphemism, but Google tells me that there are indeed such items. As for a prism to view these handbags through....at Victoria Station....????

Never mind Tim Paine, how's this for a stat? Cameron Bancroft played for Gloucestershire last season. Until his final innings (where he scored 206* to lift his average to an even 40) he had scored 479 runs at the princely average of 26, with no centuries and just four fifties.

Players in the squad with a higher average included his opening partner Chris Dent (894 at 42) and David Payne (203 at 33) - who is a specialist fast bowler!

So either what we have been told about the second division of the championship is a load of round objects, or Chris Dent is the answer to our opening conundrum, or the standard of shield cricket and Australian batting generally is so dismal that they see quality in a batsman not fit for the first team in a really struggling English county.

Either way, while I still expect Oz to win, something strange is going on.

I'm afraid you guys have lost me. I did wonder whether 'Hunting Handbags' was a euphemism, but Google tells me that there are indeed such items. As for a prism to view these handbags through....at Victoria Station....????

Sajid Javid gets it, and he gets it much more than the other ‘new generation’ of Tories do. Also, the reaction of the DM (see their front page) is utterly pathetic.

Paul Dacre is the best unwitting ally Corbyn and the far Left will ever get.The only way to destroy capitalism is to ensure an ever-growing proportion of the population are denied access to capital and anger them into the bargain. Dacre seems to be doing his best to ensure that trends in this direction are sustained.

House building on the scale we need will be perceived as an attack on the equity and amenity of those already with houses - the majority of the population and who are disproportionately represented in the Tory Base. It would take a miracle/suicide mission by a Conservative government with a huge majority in good times to pull off. The idea one with no majority and Brexit to deal with is going to do it is fanciful. They'd be insane to try. Which doesn't mean small things can't or won't be done. I suspect they will but radical action is for the Birds.

The least impractical option - letting councils/RSLs borrow to build and also take the blame for unpopular developments - is the one most objectional to Tory Theology. Though why is beyond me. The only way a future Tory government can sell council houses again to tenants is build some more council houses in the first place.

Basically this is a crisis of Conservative voter creation. If the engine has been switched off by folk being stuck in the PRS for too long that doesn't mean the Super Tanker will stop moving for a long while even if the crew knows the inevitable out come.

Then there is Brexit. Tell me at a psychological, emotional, zeitgeist level did the Tory Shires vote for Brexit to induce massive house building or prevent as they see it the need for it ?

Some welcome supply side tinkering will happen but expect the emphasis on nonsense like HtB and Stamp Duty cuts for first time buyers. Stuff that looks like a good retail offer but does bugger all about supply.

HtB actually makes things worse, by increasing the amount of money chasing the same number of homes, and providing greater help to those who are best placed to get on to the ladder in the first place. Reducing property tax could have the same effect, unless it is very carefully targeted.

Ultimately the solution to both the Willetts problem and housing is to make holding property unattractive other than as a primary home, and to redistribute from those holding wealth toward those earning income by taxing the former and lifting the tax burden on the latter.

House prices have almost nothing to do with the supply and demand for houses - therefore building more houses (although necessary) won't make any difference.

House prices are driven by money supply inflation, since when money is lent for mortgages by commercial banks it is new money that increases the money supply and therefore causes inflation.

The 'genius' of central bank policy for 20 years now has been to have massive inflation in the economy but direct it to assets rather than consumer goods.

Inflation in assets is no different than inflation in goods. Both are caused by increased money supply. The only way to stop house prices rising is to restrict the ability of banks to create new money.

I'm afraid you guys have lost me. I did wonder whether 'Hunting Handbags' was a euphemism, but Google tells me that there are indeed such items. As for a prism to view these handbags through....at Victoria Station....????

@Sandpit Quite. So it's a personal preference whether one more cliff edge makes no difference then or the existence of so many cliff edges means creating another is particularly objectionable.

However that prompts me to mention Universal Credit. The whole philosophy is to remove most cliff edges and reduce the taper rate to about 65%. How does introducing a binary keep/lose your tenancy cliff edge for social housing tenants fit with that ?

@CarlottaVance I don't know. I'd need to look at the Guernsey situation far more closely. But the current UK law re social housing tenancies has been supported by a chain of governments. So on that criterion ' works ' ?

Thousands of wealthy professionals are living in taxpayer-subsidised council houses despite earning more £100,000 a year, official figures have disclosed.

Up to 5,000 people with six-figure salaries – including transport union boss Bob Crow - are enjoying the benefit of paying cheap rents for council homes or properties let by housing associations.

Analysis by the Department for Communities and Local Government suggests that these rich tenants, who are in the top 5 per cent of all earners, are subsidised by about £4,200 each a year through the low rents that they pay.

does the Cabinet even agree on a line in the sand date....? It does appear a distraction from the bigger issues (one which grabs attention) .

As for the housing issue there is no easy quick fix solution, if anyone thinks a lab govt will solve that one in its first (and only?) term then they'll believe anything....

A proper Brexit, with the UK outside the SM/CU and proper immigration controls, will help to solve the housing crisis. Parts of England, particularly the South-East, can't cope with more people and housing. The reduction in trade links with places outside Europe that had developed between the reigns of QE1 and QE2 when the UK joined the EU has done much to focus economic progress on SE England and has been particularly bad for former industrial areas on the west coast of GB, such as Glasgow, Liverpool and South Wales.

The EU will do everything it can to make it impossible for London to continue as the financial capital of Europe post Brexit, so this will no longer be a cash cow for the Treasury and alternative income-generators will need to be developed.

The solution to the housing crisis is to damage the economy? Right.

Was it only yesterday that Leavers were heralding the apparent increase in workers from the EU as some kind of sign of success?

The Brexit vote was also a message to the government by those in the population who resent the country being swamped by people with alien backgrounds/ethnicity and wish the country to be purer even if poorer (economically). Farage in front of "that" poster conveyed this message clearly and effectively, which is why it so annoyed the "liberals".

The UK is a white Protestant Christian state and the influx of too many people with different values raises understandable hackles. WASPs sting if disturbed. This is not new - the Aliens Act of 1905 was passed because of similar attitudes, incidentally by the antisemitic Balfour who is so lauded by the Zionists.

Please note that I am not supporting/advocating such views, but merely noting them.

Thousands of wealthy professionals are living in taxpayer-subsidised council houses despite earning more £100,000 a year, official figures have disclosed.

Up to 5,000 people with six-figure salaries – including transport union boss Bob Crow - are enjoying the benefit of paying cheap rents for council homes or properties let by housing associations.

Analysis by the Department for Communities and Local Government suggests that these rich tenants, who are in the top 5 per cent of all earners, are subsidised by about £4,200 each a year through the low rents that they pay.

@Sandpit Quite. So it's a personal preference whether one more cliff edge makes no difference then or the existence of so many cliff edges means creating another is particularly objectionable.

However that prompts me to mention Universal Credit. The whole philosophy is to remove most cliff edges and reduce the taper rate to about 65%. How does introducing a binary keep/lose your tenancy cliff edge for social housing tenants fit with that ?

@CarlottaVance I don't know. I'd need to look at the Guernsey situation far more closely. But the current UK law re social housing tenancies has been supported by a chain of governments. So on that criterion ' works ' ?

Yes, UC will make a big difference to withdrawal rates at the bottom end, removing a number of cliff edges such as the 16 hour rule and encouraging people to do as much work as possible.

The whole system of income tax, national insurance and tax credits is still too complicated though, and - UC introduction aside - has been made deliberately moreso by recent Chancellors. I’d rip it up and start from scratch, but that’s probably another one for the “too-difficult” box at the moment.

Social housing should be let short term to those who would otherwise be homeless. It shouldn’t be for life regardless of circumstances, people should aspire to move out of it.

Thousands of wealthy professionals are living in taxpayer-subsidised council houses despite earning more £100,000 a year, official figures have disclosed.

Up to 5,000 people with six-figure salaries – including transport union boss Bob Crow - are enjoying the benefit of paying cheap rents for council homes or properties let by housing associations.

Analysis by the Department for Communities and Local Government suggests that these rich tenants, who are in the top 5 per cent of all earners, are subsidised by about £4,200 each a year through the low rents that they pay.

1. People aged 45 to 65 – the baby boomers – own more than half of the £6.7tn national wealth. Willetts estimates that they own £3.5tn - £1tn in liquid assets, £1tn in housing, £0.75tn in other physical assets and £0.75tn in pensions. He says the over-65s own £2.3tn and the under-45s own £0.9tn. The main argument of the book is that the baby boomers should share more with the young.

2. Baby boomers have done particularly well out of the welfare state. Those born between 1956 and 1961 are forecast to get from the welfare state 118% of what they will have put into it.

4. Average household size in Britain (2.4) is one of the lowest in the world. Willetts says there is a correlation between average household size and equality. If a couple break up, and the man is working and the woman isn't, the man will be counted as richer in the official figures (because he now does not have family to feed) while the woman will be counted as poorer. "By and large more equal societies have bigger households," Willetts say. The average household size in Sweden is 3.1, which is "one reason why its level of inequality is much lower".

State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

Sajid Javid gets it, and he gets it much more than the other ‘new generation’ of Tories do. Also, the reaction of the DM (see their front page) is utterly pathetic.

Not seen the DM but you're right. While the daily mash piece on youngsters incredulous they cannot afford a nice place in one of the most important cities on the planet was very amusing there is a real issue here, and I come across no shortage of tories who agree, even though they know it would go down very poorly in parts of the tory shires if certain actions were taken to try to resolve matters.

Thousands of wealthy professionals are living in taxpayer-subsidised council houses despite earning more £100,000 a year, official figures have disclosed.

Up to 5,000 people with six-figure salaries – including transport union boss Bob Crow - are enjoying the benefit of paying cheap rents for council homes or properties let by housing associations.

Analysis by the Department for Communities and Local Government suggests that these rich tenants, who are in the top 5 per cent of all earners, are subsidised by about £4,200 each a year through the low rents that they pay.

Not on those numbers no. I'm not prepared to extend state power and interference in the lives of millions with periodic reviews and evictions to deal with 5000 exceptions. And frankly nearly all social housing blocks/estates/communities could do with more £100k + residents not less. The idea such communities aren't poor enough seems bizarre to me.

On Crow, God rest his soul, would it have been better if he had used RtB and pocketed a huge windfall ? I rather admire a Trade Union leader who stayed in a council house. It was like all the flack Frank Dobbs used to get. A Labour MP in a council house. Shocking !

BiFab could have major implications for politics in Scotland.1,400 green jobs under threat,1,000 strong march on Scottish parliament.SLAB seems to be getting its mojo back so v worrying for both Tories and SNP.

Ah, we're back on the 'different sides in a negotiation see things differently and that is incredible news' reporting then?

No, we are still on "Brexiteers are still in cloud cuckoo land". Again.

@theobertram: But the trouble with this plan - no matter how gloriously it is enacted by No10 & assuming that all 27 member states go along with it - is that it was the same plan David Cameron tried & failed with his EU deal in January 2016.

@carlgardner: Davis is all over the place on the ECJ. Last night he said there should only be one change, with ECJ jurisdiction to the end of transition. This morning he says he wants some kind of mid-transition ECJ transition. #r4today

@Foxinsoxuk As for the Orwellian prospect of reassessing *every* Social Housing tenancy every X years then evicting those deemed too successful to move into the less secure and more expensive private sector... Good luck with that. The cost, the appeals, the media horror stories, the civil disobedience and resisted evictions, the appalling incentive not to improve your situation or regress it as your reassessment approaches. All to evict ' Hard working Brits ' so Mohammed and his 9 kids on benefits can be rehoused as The Sun will frame it...

That's before we get to the view that the problem with Britain's social housing estates is their are too many working residents and they need more poor people with complex needs.

Do you really believe that someone should retain the right to a subsidised house for life regardless of improved circumstances?

Not really, but given the tendency of media and opposition (whoever is in power) to focus on the negatives and that even with good policies there will be mistakes I think yellow submarine is right about how it woukd be seen. It is classic politics to find those who are hit by a policy, even if it is not unfair or maybe unfair but is an aberration, and say the whole idea is bad as a result.

With increasing evidence May and Davis are going to pay the EU a significant exit fee to kick start FTA talks and confirmation from Davis that the ECJ will have jurisdiction over the UK in the transition period etc, the 'enshrining the Brexit date in law' is really just a bone thrown to Tory Brexiteers than anything more.

This is the guardian take on the DD speech. His request that the EU not “put politics above prosperity” should be in The Onion. //www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/16/david-davis-warns-eu-not-to-put-politics-above-prosperity-in-brexit-talks

BiFab could have major implications for politics in Scotland.1,400 green jobs under threat,1,000 strong march on Scottish parliament.SLAB seems to be getting its mojo back so v worrying for both Tories and SNP.

This is the leaderless Scottish Labour, who suspended their acting leader the other day over harrasment allegations?

BiFab could have major implications for politics in Scotland.1,400 green jobs under threat,1,000 strong march on Scottish parliament.SLAB seems to be getting its mojo back so v worrying for both Tories and SNP.

Under their dynamic leader... Err... What time is it? I'm sure it'll have changed again.

Ah, we're back on the 'different sides in a negotiation see things differently and that is incredible news' reporting then?

No, we are still on "Brexiteers are still in cloud cuckoo land". Again.

Possibly - the EU always has the stronger hand - but you'll forgive if I am prepared to be skeptical when any report about the EU position which condemns our stupidity is treated as gospel truth automatically by you, with the mere report that x says something about it being bad Must be true, even when it is in their interests to spin as well. They have an interest in saying we won't get anything we ask for, we have an interest in trying to ask for it, maybe they'll hold firm but it is not weird in a negotiation to push and see what you can get. We just need sense to recognise when it is too much - and no them saying it is not proof, since, again, it's a negotiation and they'll say no to anything to start with.

BiFab could have major implications for politics in Scotland.1,400 green jobs under threat,1,000 strong march on Scottish parliament.SLAB seems to be getting its mojo back so v worrying for both Tories and SNP.

Under their dynamic leader... Err... What time is it? I'm sure it'll have changed again.

does the Cabinet even agree on a line in the sand date....? It does appear a distraction from the bigger issues (one which grabs attention) .

As for the housing issue there is no easy quick fix solution, if anyone thinks a lab govt will solve that one in its first (and only?) term then they'll believe anything....

A proper Brexit, with the UK outside the SM/CU and proper immigration controls, will help to solve the housing crisis. Parts of England, particularly the South-East, can't cope with more people and housing. The reduction in trade links with places outside Europe that had developed between the reigns of QE1 and QE2 when the UK joined the EU has done much to focus economic progress on SE England and has been particularly bad for former industrial areas on the west coast of GB, such as Glasgow, Liverpool and South Wales.

The EU will do everything it can to make it impossible for London to continue as the financial capital of Europe post Brexit, so this will no longer be a cash cow for the Treasury and alternative income-generators will need to be developed.

There is no way London will not continue to be the financial capital of Europe whatever happens with Brexit, Frankfurt and Paris might close the gap but they will not overtake

House building on the scale we need will be perceived as an attack on the equity and amenity of those already with houses - the majority of the population and who are disproportionately represented in the Tory Base. It would take a miracle/suicide mission by a Conservative government with a huge majority in good times to pull off. The idea one with no majority and Brexit to deal with is going to do it is fanciful. They'd be insane to try. Which doesn't mean small things can't or won't be done. I suspect they will but radical action is for the Birds.

The least impractical option - letting councils/RSLs borrow to build and also take the blame for unpopular developments - is the one most objectional to Tory Theology. Though why is beyond me. The only way a future Tory government can sell council houses again to tenants is build some more council houses in the first place.

Basically this is a crisis of Conservative voter creation. If the engine has been switched off by folk being stuck in the PRS for too long that doesn't mean the Super Tanker will stop moving for a long while even if the crew knows the inevitable out come.

Then there is Brexit. Tell me at a psychological, emotional, zeitgeist level did the Tory Shires vote for Brexit to induce massive house building or prevent as they see it the need for it ?

Some welcome supply side tinkering will happen but expect the emphasis on nonsense like HtB and Stamp Duty cuts for first time buyers. Stuff that looks like a good retail offer but does bugger all about supply.

The Tories voted for Brexit to end free movement and cut immigration and in the long term reduce pressure for new housing and the government is still going ahead with that

you'll forgive if I am prepared to be skeptical when any report about the EU position which condemns our stupidity is treated as gospel truth automatically by you

This is a direct quote

@bbclaurak: Davis warns German audience not to put EU politics ahead of getting a trade deal - 'putting politics above prosperity is never a smart choice.'

The stupidity of the Brexiteers is self-evident

The quote seems sound advice, surely you and others take issue with the deliverer not following the same principal not the message itself.

Regardless, I don't discount the possibility we are doing a bad job negotiating. The point, though is you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth, and that makes no sense since they are also trying to get the best deal for their side so will do what they have to to get it, it won't all be unvarnished truth.

Take the bill. Increased to 100 billion at one point, possibly so later on both sides can claim success at 60. Under your logic, because we are dumb and everything EU negotiators say is true, that 60 would in fact be a massive defeat for them, since they would have been totally right, as ever, to demand 100. You make no allowance for even the strongest side to have a vested interest in how it presents the facts.

4) is interesting, but not easy to fix. Improving the quality of relationships so that families stick together is not something that is very amenable to government policy. One way is to reduce financial pressures on the young, as finances tend to be a major source of argument. Hence back to tuition fees and related issues.

Increasing household size does make sense as part of an overall housing policy. Encouraging empty nesters to trade down to smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up family size homes for the next generation, should be part of this. The bedroom tax was characteristically ineptly implemented, but right in principle. State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

A gradual phasing back in of normal interest rates, which will aid savers and subdue house inflation, is long overdue. As @RCS1000 has pointed out on a number of occasions, a low savings rate leads to a current account deficit.

Worth noting that there are two groups that have been hit very hard by the ultra low interest rates:

1) Baby boomers like my parents with cash savings rather than index linked pensions.2) 20 somethings like me looking to save for a deposit.

So with that in mind I can say I'm doing my bit for average household size by still living with my parents.

Sadly the likelihood is that, whilst interest rates will very slowly rise, inflation may well rise faster, so that real interest rates are not going up at all, and may possibly fall still further.

I'd take a rise in everyday inflation (goods/services) and a fall in house prices.

4) is interesting, but not easy to fix. Improving the quality of relationships so that families stick together is not something that is very amenable to government policy. One way is to reduce financial pressures on the young, as finances tend to be a major source of argument. Hence back to tuition fees and related issues.

Increasing household size does make sense as part of an overall housing policy. Encouraging empty nesters to trade down to smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up family size homes for the next generation, should be part of this. The bedroom tax was characteristically ineptly implemented, but right in principle. State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

A gradual phasing back in of normal interest rates, which will aid savers and subdue house inflation, is long overdue. As @RCS1000 has pointed out on a number of occasions, a low savings rate leads to a current account deficit.

Worth noting that there are two groups that have been hit very hard by the ultra low interest rates:

1) Baby boomers like my parents with cash savings rather than index linked pensions.2) 20 somethings like me looking to save for a deposit.

So with that in mind I can say I'm doing my bit for average household size by still living with my parents.

Sadly the likelihood is that, whilst interest rates will very slowly rise, inflation may well rise faster, so that real interest rates are not going up at all, and may possibly fall still further.

I'd take a rise in everyday inflation (goods/services) and a fall in house prices.

Except a fall in house prices would mean slower spending by households not to say disinflation.

Brussels does not believe it is possible to strike anything more than a limited Canadian-style free trade agreement with the UK, according to a leaked European Commission document.

The internal discussion paper stated that Britain’s rejection of membership of the single market and the customs union meant that co-operation would have to be restricted.

The paper, leaked to the Politico website, stated that “single market arrangements in certain areas” or the “evolution of our regulatory frameworks” could not be managed within EU law as it stood. It added that the UK would have to be satisfied with a “standard FTA (free trade agreement)”.

The document stated that Britain’s insistence on “regulatory autonomy” and its intention to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would make it “not compatible” as a partner.

Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services”. The documents added that there were only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

4) is interesting, but not easy to fix. Improving the quality of relationships so that families stick together is not something that is very amenable to government policy. One way is to reduce financial pressures on the young, as finances tend to be a major source of argument. Hence back to tuition fees and related issues.

Increasing household size does make sense as part of an overall housing policy. Encouraging empty nesters to trade down to smaller accommodation, thereby freeing up family size homes for the next generation, should be part of this. The bedroom tax was characteristically ineptly implemented, but right in principle. State owned housing should be allocated on basis of need, and reallocated when those needs change according to socialist principles.

A gradual phasing back in of normal interest rates, which will aid savers and subdue house inflation, is long overdue. As @RCS1000 has pointed out on a number of occasions, a low savings rate leads to a current account deficit.

Worth noting that there are two groups that have been hit very hard by the ultra low interest rates:

1) Baby boomers like my parents with cash savings rather than index linked pensions.2) 20 somethings like me looking to save for a deposit.

So with that in mind I can say I'm doing my bit for average household size by still living with my parents.

Sadly the likelihood is that, whilst interest rates will very slowly rise, inflation may well rise faster, so that real interest rates are not going up at all, and may possibly fall still further.

I'd take a rise in everyday inflation (goods/services) and a fall in house prices.

Except a fall in house prices would mean slower spending by households not to say disinflation.

Quite possibly. This is what's so bad about the current situation. Everyone is saying house prices are too high, but I can guarantee we'll hear a lot of complaining if house prices start to fall.

Brussels does not believe it is possible to strike anything more than a limited Canadian-style free trade agreement with the UK, according to a leaked European Commission document.

The internal discussion paper stated that Britain’s rejection of membership of the single market and the customs union meant that co-operation would have to be restricted.

The paper, leaked to the Politico website, stated that “single market arrangements in certain areas” or the “evolution of our regulatory frameworks” could not be managed within EU law as it stood. It added that the UK would have to be satisfied with a “standard FTA (free trade agreement)”.

The document stated that Britain’s insistence on “regulatory autonomy” and its intention to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would make it “not compatible” as a partner.

Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services”. The documents added that there were only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.

Yes it is.

The rules are clear: to obtain the right to moan, you have to vote. And if you want to moan like a dockside hooker taking a podium place at the world moaning championships, we need to see a canvassing record. Sorry, but there it is.